Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
PC/RAS are not subject to your agreement.
Neither are they if any LEO claims them against me. My point is that a DNR warden is no different than any other LEO.
PC/RAS are not subject to your agreement.
Perhaps I should have kept reading eh? lolJoe, you are forgetting about Article 1, Section 26
In the mind of the regime, the Ruling Class to use Codevilla's terms, and not necessarily reasonable in the mind of the Country Class US.Perhaps I should have kept reading eh? I don't like this part though, "subject only to reasonable restrictions." WTF is reasonable?[DH emphasis]
Perhaps I should have kept reading eh? lol
I don't like this part though, "subject only to reasonable restrictions." WTF is reasonable?
Since hunting is a privilege and requires a license, a warden has the power to check for your license.
This is where my question comes in. Is hunting alone a qualified reason to be checked? LEO can not check our license just because they saw us driving a car.
29.024(1)
(1) Approvals required . Except as specifically provided in this chapter, ch. 169, or s. 95.55 (5), no person may hunt or trap in this state, fish in the waters of this state or engage in any of the activities regulated under this chapter unless the appropriate approval is issued to the person. A person shall carry the required approval with him or her at all times while hunting, trapping, or fishing or engaged in regulated activities unless otherwise required by this chapter or unless otherwise authorized or required by the department. A person shall exhibit the approval to the department or its wardens on demand.
Thank you. Acording to 29.024(1) it would appear that the DNR has more authority than LEO.
.DNR Wardens are one step below archangels
I've recieved second hand information that wardens at Bong Recreation Area are frisking individuals who are pheasant hunting to determine if they have untagged birds on their person. My question is whether or not the wardens need PC or RAS to frisk or pat down an individual? This would be related to open carry since one would be open carrying a shotgun while hunting.
Will the experts on the forum provide guidance?
I think this does it
From the 2010-2011 Fishing regulations:
Page 21
Warden Authority
Conservation wardens performing their duties may enter private land at any time. Wardens may also seize as evidence all fish taken or possessed in violation of the law, and any equipment used in connection with a violation. Wardens do not have the authority to enforce trespass laws.
There's something similar in the hunting regs, but I can’t find it.
OK, can anyone find the statute that gives the penalty with refusal to comply with a DNR wardens demand to show them your license? Or is it like the stop and identify law.... no teeth?
29.951
29.951 Resisting a warden. Any person who assaults or otherwise resists or obstructs any warden in the performance of duty shall be subject to the penalty specified in s. 939.51 (3) (a).
939.51(3)
(3) Penalties for misdemeanors are as follows:
939.51(3)(a)
(a) For a Class A misdemeanor, a fine not to exceed $10,000 or imprisonment not to exceed 9 months, or both.
939.51(3)(b)
(b) For a Class B misdemeanor, a fine not to exceed $1,000 or imprisonment not to exceed 90 days, or both.
939.51(3)(c)
(c) For a Class C misdemeanor, a fine not to exceed $500 or imprisonment not to exceed 30 days, or both.
Does this help?
29.951 WILD ANIMALS AND PLANTS
29.951Resisting a warden. Any person who assaults or
otherwise resists or obstructs any warden in the performance of
duty shall be subject to the penalty specified in s. 939.51 (3) (a).
History: 1975 c. 365, 421; 1979 c. 34; 1981 c. 20; 1993 a. 137; 1997 a. 248 s. 683;
Stats. 1997 s. 29.951.
This section defines one crime with multiple modes of commission and comports
with the applicable fundamental fairness standard embodied in the due process
clause. Jury unanimity as to the manner in which a defendant violates it is not
required. Failure to specify the manner of violation did not deny the defendant his
due process right to a unanimous jury verdict. State v. Dearborn, 2008 WI App 131,
313 Wis. 2d 767, 758 N.W.2d 463, 07−1894. Affirmed on other grounds. 2010 WI
84, ___ Wis. 2d___, ___ N.W.2d ___, 07−1894.
I don't see the nice case law below like the ID statute.
So, the question is whether a judge may use the caselaw for the obstructing an officer statute or if you would be striking new legal ground for failure to show a license?
Otherwise it appears you are correct. Too much power here.
Thanks but only different in that I have a 2008 copy in my computer. I weigh my commitment to WI-OCDO by whether or not I feel like buying another copy updated $100 pearls to strew before some swinish correspondents. I'm not going to spend money on laws for scofflaws.I bet Doug is more efficient at this than I am.
Does this help?